I'm more than halfway through Nanci Danison's first book 'Backwards-Returning to Our Source for Answers'.

Thus far, it's an incredibly revealing and insightful book as I find it and really helped clarify much for me along the way. The parallels she makes match up very well with the non-duality most of us are familiar with, here on this board. At the same time there are also vast differences in the understanding of 'Source' and what our 'purpose' is here that differ greatly in my estimation from the traditional non-dual teachings and has provided me with much more clarity on this subject. She even references Eckhart Tolle in the book and points out a wonderful pointer from Eckhart from PoN.

She talks about the difference between the human animal and the soul in her book. She basically implies that while everything in the physical universe is merely Source (a giant Aware, energy field) in various physical forms, the human animal and the soul (light being experiencing through the body) are different in that the human animal operates regardless of whether there is a soul or not and that, there are humans that are living without souls. This has me a bit baffled. The whole notion of humans living without souls.

I was hoping someone could possibly clarify this based on their understanding of her experiences.

I know this whole topic of NDE's and souls and such is not a fan favorite by many on this forum, which is why I'd prefer responses from those who've either read her book, watched her videos or those with an interest in the subject matter.

I was hoping someone could possibly clarify this based on their understanding of her experiences.

With all due respect E2B, only she could clarify it to any degree of honesty within her awareness, capacity and willingness 'now', not even as written at that time.

Outside of her awareness, capacity and willingness to share her perspective the rest would all be 'guesses', based on your perceptions of what she is 'saying' and others' perceptions of what you are saying, influenced by our awareness, capacity, willingness. The further we go from pure source the more 'muddy' it becomes. Figuratively, relatively and absolutely.

I'm 'acutely' aware of this right now because after having discussed something else with you, I've found where my own musings (in another arena) has been shared and quoted a little (degrees are important) out of context and definitely skewing what I actually think 'now'. A tiny distortion grows by degrees of separation in time and distance.

Having said that, you could evaluate any evidence presented to support the hypotheses and see if the confusion is lack of supporting evidence or just difference in premise yours to hers.

She basically implies that while everything in the physical universe is merely Source (a giant Aware, energy field) in various physical forms, the human animal and the soul (light being experiencing through the body) are different in that the human animal operates regardless of whether there is a soul or not and that, there are humans that are living without souls. This has me a bit baffled. The whole notion of humans living without souls.

My 'mind' goes.. if the premise is that everything is 'merely Source' (and I'm aware that I will 'distort'- reinterpret that to source energy in motion, changing the understanding of it by degrees), in various physical forms - then everything in physical form is 'merely' source energy in various physical forms.

Logically then, there cannot be anything that is 'outside' of that, or 'added' to that.

It also relies on the separating, also as far as I'm aware, unproven notion that humans are so 'different' to every other 'form' of energy in motion - that we're 'special', we have a 'soul' or can be without a 'soul'.

Is the premise that humans (in form) are any different to any other life 'form' supported with evidence?

Or is it the perspective perceived (making sense of 'stuff') and shared in awareness, capacity and willingness from/in - the 'frequency' or 'resonance' of one particular 'form'? (eg 'merely' Nanci's perspective)

Are the 'traits' of those 'with a soul' and 'without a soul' logically explained or explainable?

smiileyjen101 wrote:
My 'mind' goes.. if the premise is that everything is 'merely Source' (and I'm aware that I will 'distort'- reinterpret that to source energy in motion, changing the understanding of it by degrees), in various physical forms - then everything in physical form is 'merely' source energy in various physical forms.

Logically then, there cannot be anything that is 'outside' of that, or 'added' to that.

It also relies on the separating, also as far as I'm aware, unproven notion that humans are so 'different' to every other 'form' of energy in motion - that we're 'special', we have a 'soul' or can be without a 'soul'.

I would agree that they are not different and that if anything (and my outlook has changed itself concerning this) Nanci herself has expressed in the book that humans are not special and that, it is just the human ego that thinks it is.

Or is it the perspective perceived (making sense of 'stuff') and shared in awareness, capacity and willingness from/in - the 'frequency' or 'resonance' of one particular 'form'? (eg 'merely' Nanci's perspective)

Yes, good point, but all we have is her perspective in this case, since she's the author of the book.

Are the 'traits' of those 'with a soul' and 'without a soul' logically explained or explainable?

Logically? I throw out logic when I read about NDE's. I wouldn't even know the traits of those with or without a soul. It was just a quick 'foot note' that she wrote in her book which is why I'm questioning it. According to Nanci, from my understanding (which is obviously very little), everything is Source and experienced by Source....everything including a speck of dirt and a rock. Then when she states that every one of us is a 'light being' (extension of Source) that is taking on the role of Soul in the physical exploration via the human body (which is also a living organism), but later goes on to say in a quick footnote, that there are 'unoccupied humans', it was a bit confusing. The semantics are not important really, other than to get a better understanding on what you're reading in a book. So, granted, while I'd agree that any of us can possibly 'muddle' her perspective from her own experience with our own interpretations of a second hand experience, this little footnote was pretty straightforward and would be pretty difficult to 'muddle', but, wondered perhaps if I missed something along the way in the book. Oh well.

Then when she states that every one of us is a 'light being' (extension of Source) that is taking on the role of Soul in the physical exploration via the human body (which is also a living organism),

Not sure I understand that. Who / what is she referring to in the 'us'? everything source?

I'm not really sure to be honest. When she says 'us', I assume she's merely referencing the 'reader' in this case. She has indicated though in the book that souls not only take part in humans, but also experience through other non physical forms within the universe on other 'planets and planes' in her words.

The two Michael Newton books are Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls.

Ever so briefly, a hypnotherapist accidentally finds himself regressing a client into, amazingly, what turns out to be "life between lives." Roughly, you find there a well-orchestrated soul re-perfection academy. WW and I kinda agree the author let his excitement get the better of him, he wanted to "flesh out" details too much (who can blame him; I would have also) and his questions become too leading. He conjectures too much. A few place he works too hard to provide connection with known earth-world phenomena like electro-magnetism. This was all a bit of faux-pas, especially for a professional from a world where people publish in peer-reviewed journals and present at conferences.

All that human zeal aside...
Nothing else like it out there.
Amazing stuff amongst the totality of it.

Enlightened2B wrote:
She talks about the difference between the human animal and the soul in her book. She basically implies that while everything in the physical universe is merely Source (a giant Aware, energy field) in various physical forms, the human animal and the soul (light being experiencing through the body) are different in that the human animal operates regardless of whether there is a soul or not and that, there are humans that are living without souls. This has me a bit baffled. The whole notion of humans living without souls.

I was hoping someone could possibly clarify this based on their understanding of her experiences.

I've studied the Danison material with some interest, and I came to the same 'say what?' on the human animals without souls statement. I don't know if I'll ever resolve it satisfactorily but one thing did occur to me. Consider the nature of a sociopath - someone who has no feeling for the pain of another, someone who seems driven exclusively by basic animal instincts, someone with dull reactive behavior that seems focused on little else than narrow emotionless self interest. I'm not making any definitive statements here, just exploring a curious possibility.

Enlightened2B wrote:
She talks about the difference between the human animal and the soul in her book. She basically implies that while everything in the physical universe is merely Source (a giant Aware, energy field) in various physical forms, the human animal and the soul (light being experiencing through the body) are different in that the human animal operates regardless of whether there is a soul or not and that, there are humans that are living without souls. This has me a bit baffled. The whole notion of humans living without souls.

I was hoping someone could possibly clarify this based on their understanding of her experiences.

I've studied the Danison material with some interest, and I came to the same 'say what?' on the human animals without souls statement. I don't know if I'll ever resolve it satisfactorily but one thing did occur to me. Consider the nature of a sociopath - someone who has no feeling for the pain of another, someone who seems driven exclusively by basic animal instincts, someone with dull reactive behavior that seems focused on little else than narrow emotionless self interest. I'm not making any definitive statements here, just exploring a curious possibility.

WW

Interesting take. Can't say I would disagree, but let's hypothetically say that this is the case as you indicate above, what would the implications be for one of these 'soulless humans' at the time of death of the body? Is there no chance for awakening for these purely 'animal beings' or is there, since they are perceiving from the same awareness (Source) that we (Souls) are? Not that I would expect you to provide an actual answer to this ridiculous question I proposed , but curious on your take.

slow ride wrote:The two Michael Newton books are Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls.

Ever so briefly, a hypnotherapist accidentally finds himself regressing a client into, amazingly, what turns out to be "life between lives." Roughly, you find there a well-orchestrated soul re-perfection academy. WW and I kinda agree the author let his excitement get the better of him, he wanted to "flesh out" details too much (who can blame him; I would have also) and his questions become too leading. He conjectures too much. A few place he works too hard to provide connection with known earth-world phenomena like electro-magnetism. This was all a bit of faux-pas, especially for a professional from a world where people publish in peer-reviewed journals and present at conferences.

All that human zeal aside...
Nothing else like it out there.
Amazing stuff amongst the totality of it.

I've just stacked up on a bunch of a books to read including WW's recommended Natalie Sudman's book which I still haven't gotten to. So, I'll put this one that you reference here in the background for the meantime. Thanks for the summary. Much appreciated.

Enlightened2B wrote:...let's hypothetically say that this is the case as you indicate above, what would the implications be for one of these 'soulless humans' at the time of death of the body? Is there no chance for awakening for these purely 'animal beings' or is there, since they are perceiving from the same awareness (Source) that we (Souls) are?

Let's go from a little different premiss. (Disclaimer: I don't even have a sense that Danison's statement is true, let alone be able to explain it with any clarity. But why let complete ignorance on the subject stop a fun journey into imagination) I don't see these soulless manifestations as 'perceiving from the same (Source) awareness' as does an incarnated Soul. At least not in the same way.

My hypothesis is that a Soul is somewhat autonomous, making decisions from it's own autonomy. That includes any potential decision to incarnate an extension of itself. As there is no Soul connection nor Soul origin in a 'soulless body' there is no autonomy in the larger sense of Soul perspective. Therefore at the death of the soulless body, its fundamental energy is simply either re-absorbed into the Greater Source Energy, or relegated to a realm of Specialized Source Energy where it is further developed into.... whatever.

Okay, do I believe this? Not really. It's way out of my pay grade. As I said, I don't even know if a Soulless body can exist. But if it does, this is as plausible as anything else I've heard. Wait... I haven't really 'heard' anything on the subject of what happens. So really, I'm making it up out of bits and peaces of other information and insights.

So there it is. What do you think...er... perceive... imagine... guess?

Webwanderer wrote:
My hypothesis is that a Soul is somewhat autonomous, making decisions from it's own autonomy. That includes any potential decision to incarnate an extension of itself. As there is no Soul connection nor Soul origin in a 'soulless body' there is no autonomy in the larger sense of Soul perspective. Therefore at the death of the soulless body, its fundamental energy is simply either re-absorbed into the Greater Source Energy, or relegated to a realm of Specialized Source Energy where it is further developed into.... whatever.

Okay, do I believe this? Not really. It's way out of my pay grade. As I said, I don't even know if a Soulless body can exist. But if it does, this is as plausible as anything else I've heard. Wait... I haven't really 'heard' anything on the subject of what happens. So really, I'm making it up out of bits and peaces of other information and insights.

So there it is. What do you think...er... perceive... imagine... guess?

WW

From what I've been reading and from my understanding, it seems that the soul is indeed autonomous in making choices, such as the decision to incarnate in the first place and therefore, does indeed have free will (contrary to what I used to believe). So, I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense and I'd say it's as good a hypothesis as one can possibly consider in such a weird 'scenario' as presented by her statement. If Source is comprised of the collective perspectives of anything and everything, then the awareness that perceives through these 'soulless humans' (as comical as that sounds) would ultimately have to be an extension of Source on some level. I don't know.

I too don't know how much truth there is to that statement that she makes and perhaps (since there is so little discussed in her book pertaining to this statement outside of a footnote from what I've seen at least), she mis-interpreted something from her experience? Even in the youtube video comment section on this, she doesn't seem too 'firm' in her responses about this subject matter other than indicating that 'this was her understanding'. So, who knows?

That aside, I completed her book and I took a wealth of insight from reading it, just on the general gist of her experience alone without all of the details per say. Awesome read.

I too wondered if she was talking about those with an incapacity to process oxytocin and experience empathy as others do.

Before we had biological awareness about what 'causes' / allows / is in nature the basis of sociopathy, one could 'assume' that they are soul-less, but that hasn't been my experience of people with this way of being.

And this is kind of spiderweb thinking straddling science and nature, so forgive me for explaining where my thoughts have come from and are going to.

The 'scientific' bent - Not all humans have the capacity to process oxytocin and therefore feel, experience and display empathy. It's a purely biological incapacity.

Synchronistically I started to watch a sci fi tv program called Extant, where a man creates a robotic child, thinking that if they 'culturise' it, raise it with love in a human environment, it will take on human attributes such as empathy & compassion, loyalty, love etc and it seems to be going to fail It has to fail. If one does not have the capacity to process oxytocin then one quite simply will not have the 'awareness' or the 'capacity' to experience empathy, therefore the notion of 'willingness' or 'possibility' is absolutely mute.

In two scenes, one where the man the 'father' is looking for funding to make more of these 'children' a woman raises the notion of what will 'restrain' them from harming others, they don't have a soul. Which while it leans 'spiritually' and he responds 'scientifically' in terms of behavioural science as being uppermost in creating awareness, capacity responses, both are flawed, and both are blinded by their beliefs.

Empathy appears (as yet) to not be something that you can 'program' into anyone or anything else. But to see lack of empathetic capacity as 'soul-less' seems to be determining what it is to be human and what is the 'soul' without proven evidence. (here we go again E2B )

The second scene of note was after the 'robot' exhibited callous selfish behaviours towards the 'mother' and she said he 'hated' her, the 'father' said that the 'child loved her' and she reminded him, it was a robot, and it couldn't 'love' it could only respond within the parameters of the coding that he had programmed into it. That she interpreted it as 'hate' was as erroneous as him interpreting 'love' as a capacity. It's a robot dressed up and mimicking human behaviour.

There was another scene where the robot was standing in front of a mirror 'practising' its facial social responses.

I have to say that was chillingly similar to the way those labelled 'sociopath' have to try to find socially acceptable responses amid the wide range of possible expressions in order to be socially accepted and not be 'outed' for their lack of capacity in situations where empathy would be expected. They just don't know what it is. They have no way of knowing what it is or what it feels like or how it manifests, and why other people behave as they do. All they can see is how other people look when they display these behaviours. All they can hear is what other people say in these situations. As they've learned that it's not socially acceptable to respond in certain situations based on their own capacity, they learn to 'mimic', they put on a 'mask' that is socially acceptable.

They have to continually respond in trial and error. But all the time that they are doing this they know that they are 'pretending', they know if they were honest they would be met with revulsion, and possibly expulsion from their social circle, that they only rely on to fulfil their basic needs.

This revulsion comes from our perspective that all humans 'should' have the capacity to process oxytocin and naturally feel and display empathy. This 'should' is a bias in our perspectives. Those of us who can process oxytocin assume that all others 'should'. The reality is that some can not - not by choice or manipulation, or by the fact that they were born evil, or have been made evil, but by pure biology.

The 'spiritual' perspective (albeit 'mine' and with less or no 'scientific' evidence to support it)
I understand how it might be interpreted as 'soul-less' by some, but it's not 'soul-less' at all in my experience. If 'soul' is made up of the eternal core energy that flows into everything that is made dense and slowed down into form, then this energy is in every atom every neuron every scrap of everything in form. No thing can be 'soul-less'. There can be denser manifestation of it, but it cannot be without it.

When the 'ego' manifests and identifies with 'individuality' - 'separation' it cloaks and 'turns down' awareness of oneness, and in this we are all capable of thinking and behaving like sociopaths - until we remember who we really are etc

In the Neale Donald Walsch story Little Soul and the Sun, in that parable a little soul determines that it wants to experience being forgiveness, as in the light there is no thing to forgive, and therefore no experience of being forgiveness, and another little soul says I'll come with you and give you the opportunity to experience being forgiveness, but don't forget who I really am, and I'll try not to forget who you really are.

So, if the spiritual aspect is followed, it has to be accepted that we are all still light-energy having a physical experience, turning down our awareness to have this adventure of experiencing 'elements' and different 'perspectives' of the all. Then none of us are 'soul-less'.

Until the scientific explanation about processing oxytocin was known, it was easy to think that those labelled as sociopath were choosing to be 'evil'. They're not choosing at all, they are making choices, as we all are, within limited awareness, capacity and willingness.

While the above scientific and spiritual observations are both a 'bed' for my understanding and my awareness, I have had a number of 'opportunities' to relate with and seek to understand the perspectives of those who would or could or have been labelled 'sociopath', and even perceived by others as 'evil' and 'soul-less'. It's just not true. Their actions may be 'evil', but we don't blame a baby for not using capacities they don't have. We don't expect blind people to see us, we don't expect deaf people to hear us, we cannot in the same manner expect these people to display empathy. It's biological capacity, not choice. We can only limit what we choose to experience, not what another is allowed to experience, and therein lays the 'agitation' of relating.

If I were to lean towards the spiritual, and the notions of the 'soul', in my perspective the 'light' excludes nothing and no one and only creates equilibrium from the extremes of energy in motion, manifesting in form. In one long term interaction where I might be confused and seeking to understand another's experience and why they behaved as they did - at the time we did not have the knowledge of the biological functioning and so were limited in awareness and capacity to understand, - I did lean more in my responses in the more 'boundaryless' awareness of the light. In doing so I provided almost no resistance to their way of being, except in agitation where I could not understand it.

I always knew something was missing in my understanding. I had 'evidence' of stuff, but no 'proven' true or false in terms of cause and effect. The scientific factors feed into the biological understanding in terms of capacity.

At times I would 'feel' absolutely from my own extreme empathy capacity as if parts of this person's energy were calling to me and begging me to remember who they really were/are (spiritual understanding). But, this could also just be my sensitivity to another struggling within their own perception of reality. Many would not be able to comprehend the decision making process for one who cannot feel or express empathy, while intellectually they can and do evaluate the possible consequences of their choices as they will impact on them - the impact on others is mute. They are choosing blind.

When I read the Little Soul and the Sun, and when I recall the awareness in the light that all things are 'blameless' it actually has the same level of acceptance as accepting the clinical explanations.

So, it may be as I said earlier that Nanci was interpreting within her own awareness and capacity, and that is never static. It would be interesting to know how she evaluates the scientific processing 'new information', if indeed she was speaking about those known as 'sociopath' or 'psychopath' and trying to explain their behaviours manifesting.

Of course there may be a whole other 'species' that she knows about that we don't

I have never met a soul-less person if she is talking about the energy that creates us all and everything. Not in spirit communication interactions or in physical interactions up to and including sociopaths. It's all creation energy in motion vibrating and combining elements in different densities and frequencies.

Holding 'compassion' for sociopaths, now that's an exercise in boundaries in awareness, capacity and willingness.
It is far easier to judge and condemn, to make up labels, than it is to really seek to understand their place in it all.

ET's stuff about ego making an 'enemy', 'obstacle' or means to an end of a person, thing or situation also feed into understanding. Those unable to feel connection with others, will always feel and respond as if they are totally separate. Others then, are always a 'means to an end', or an 'enemy' or an 'obstacle' to their particular 'end/goal'.